Brian Eley

Notices of deaths, death announcements and messages.
Locked
Roger Lancaster
Posts: 1906
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Brian Eley

Post by Roger Lancaster » Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:16 pm

JustinHorton wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:17 am
This is kind of why we try and find out what is true and what isn't, isn't it
Agreed but one difficulty, if I can leave aside second- or third-hand rumours and also focus on the present day, is that many incidents of the type we're discussing are unwitnessed. That means that, when a complaint is made, all too frequently it's one person's word against another. That makes deciding what's true and what isn't rather harder. Of course, if several complainants (preferably complainants not known to one another so there's no question of a conspiracy) make substantially the same complaint against the same person then there's a definite case to be made.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Brian Eley

Post by JustinHorton » Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:35 pm

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:16 pm
That means that, when a complaint is made, all too frequently it's one person's word against another. That makes deciding what's true and what isn't rather harder. Of course, if several complainants (preferably complainants not known to one another so there's no question of a conspiracy) make substantially the same complaint against the same person then there's a definite case to be made.
Well yes, but isn't that both a common pattern (perhaps even the common pattern) and basically what is alleged to have taken place in this instance?
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 1906
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Brian Eley

Post by Roger Lancaster » Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:54 pm

JustinHorton wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:35 pm
Roger Lancaster wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:16 pm
That means that, when a complaint is made, all too frequently it's one person's word against another. That makes deciding what's true and what isn't rather harder. Of course, if several complainants (preferably complainants not known to one another so there's no question of a conspiracy) make substantially the same complaint against the same person then there's a definite case to be made.
Well yes, but isn't that both a common pattern (perhaps even the common pattern) and basically what is alleged to have taken place in this instance?
Justin. I've said before that I feel there's limited value in banging on about the Eley case because, as you fairly accept in your latest post, we're talking about allegations. I don't deny that they're plausible but how probable does something have to be before it's used to destroy someone's reputation?

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Brian Eley

Post by JustinHorton » Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:03 pm

I don't really know what "destroy someone's reputation" means here. A reputation should be based on the facts, yes? If we establish the facts of how somebody acted, then that might or might not affect their reputation, but why is that an issue?
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

David Sedgwick
Posts: 5249
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon
Contact:

Re: Brian Eley

Post by David Sedgwick » Tue Jun 28, 2022 2:14 pm

JustinHorton wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:49 am
That's interesting. Can you tell us any more? I assume you mean something along the lines of a formal approach to the police rather than sending a snatch squad....
I don't want to say very much.

The intention was to bring the matter to the attention of Jack Straw, the then Home Secretary. Whether that didn't happen, or whether he didn't do anything or get anywhere, I don't know.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 1906
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Brian Eley

Post by Roger Lancaster » Tue Jun 28, 2022 2:50 pm

JustinHorton wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:03 pm
I don't really know what "destroy someone's reputation" means here. A reputation should be based on the facts, yes? If we establish the facts of how somebody acted, then that might or might not affect their reputation, but why is that an issue?
A reputation should indeed be based on facts. That's not an issue. Where we seem to differ is that you're still hoping for facts to emerge while I consider it's unlikely. It's entirely possible that David Anderton took certain steps but that all those who were privy to those steps are now dead. That's a hypothesis that, more or less by definition, it's impossible to disprove. While I neither believe nor disbelieve it, I just don't see how any amount of "debate" can reject that hypothesis.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Brian Eley

Post by JustinHorton » Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:42 pm

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 2:50 pm
That's a hypothesis that, more or less by definition, it's impossible to disprove.
I don't think it is, because if steps were taken formally, then records of them should be in the possession of the ECF.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 8781
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Brian Eley

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:16 pm

JustinHorton wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:42 pm
Roger Lancaster wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 2:50 pm
That's a hypothesis that, more or less by definition, it's impossible to disprove.
I don't think it is, because if steps were taken formally, then records of them should be in the possession of the ECF.
You could start by asked the appropriate officials at the ECF whether historical material is archived and what their current data retention policy is (for current documentation) and when (if ever) information can be made public, and who their Data Controller is (and direct questions towards that individual). I presume the ECF is the body that 'inherited' the records of the BCF, but if not, then you could ask that as well.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Brian Eley

Post by JustinHorton » Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:39 pm

Yeah, I've been thinking about this and I probably ought to do it. But who would be the appropriate individual(s)?
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 1906
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Brian Eley

Post by Roger Lancaster » Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:47 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:16 pm
JustinHorton wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:42 pm
Roger Lancaster wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 2:50 pm
That's a hypothesis that, more or less by definition, it's impossible to disprove.
I don't think it is, because if steps were taken formally, then records of them should be in the possession of the ECF.
You could start by asked the appropriate officials at the ECF whether historical material is archived and what their current data retention policy is (for current documentation) and when (if ever) information can be made public, and who their Data Controller is (and direct questions towards that individual). I presume the ECF is the body that 'inherited' the records of the BCF, but if not, then you could ask that as well.
Worth trying - Minutes of ECF Board meetings, and I beIieve those of the predecessor BCF, are published for all to see. But, for exactIy that reason, I'd expect them to be circumlocutious over what action was or wasn't taken over this particuIar matter.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Brian Eley

Post by JustinHorton » Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:06 pm

Well yes, I wouldn't expect public minutes to be all that revealing.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

User avatar
John Upham
Posts: 7162
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Brian Eley

Post by John Upham » Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:31 pm

JustinHorton wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:39 pm
Yeah, I've been thinking about this and I probably ought to do it. But who would be the appropriate individual(s)?

I can supply the names of who the officials were at the time if you wish.

These are a matter of public record via the BCF Yearbooks.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Brian Eley

Post by JustinHorton » Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:40 pm

Kind of you, though in the first instance I imagine it would be the current officials who were responsible for present and past records, no?
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Brian Eley

Post by JustinHorton » Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:29 am

David Sedgwick wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 2:14 pm
JustinHorton wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:49 am
That's interesting. Can you tell us any more? I assume you mean something along the lines of a formal approach to the police rather than sending a snatch squad....
I don't want to say very much.

The intention was to bring the matter to the attention of Jack Straw, the then Home Secretary. Whether that didn't happen, or whether he didn't do anything or get anywhere, I don't know.
But it would be useful to know, I think.
JustinHorton wrote:
Mon Jun 27, 2022 11:28 pm
Kevin Thurlow wrote:
Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:17 pm
James Plaskett wrote a piece in “Chess” complaining that BCF appointed Eley as national coach after a large number of accusations were made against him. DW Anderton wrote a piece published the next month, saying something like, “We sacked him when he did something wrong later”, thereby ignoring the serious point that James made. This seemed a surprising thing for an apparently hotshot lawyer to do, as it gave the impression that he was not disputing that point. I don’t have those issues of “Chess” in front of me, somebody else will have to check if I have remembered correctly.
It would be good and helpful to see these pieces.
Also, I don't think I have ever seen Kingpin 27 and the relevant article Skewer (or if I have, I've forgotten). Does anybody have it?
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Nick Ivell
Posts: 1138
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:33 pm

Re: Brian Eley

Post by Nick Ivell » Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:00 am

James has always been in the vanguard of expressing concerns about Eley. What happened in Clacton would nowadays be described as grooming.

Locked